Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Drax Chief Tony Quinlan Says He Sees No Sign Of Recovery

Recommended Posts

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6565082.ece

Drax, the operator of Britain’s biggest power station, said that there had been no sign of a recovery in demand for electrical power in Britain, despite talk of “green shoots†and an early return to economic growth. Tony Quinlan, Drax’s finance director, said that electricity demand was still 6 per cent below a year ago.

Demand for power collapsed late last year as industrial activity slowed and orders from big energy users, such as makers of glass, bricks, steel, cement and chemicals, fell, Mr Quinlan said. Despite talk of economic revival in recent months, there was, he said, scant evidence of a recovery in commercial demand for power. “The demand destruction we saw last winter is carrying on into this summer.â€

Mr Quinlan was talking as Drax, whose coal-fired plant near Selby, North Yorkshire, generates 7 per cent of the UK’s electricity, unveiled plans for a £108 million rights issue to help to repay debt after a credit rating downgrade from Standard & Poor’s. City analysts expect Drax to suffer a 33 per cent drop in full-year earnings this year to £299 million, amid weaker demand for power and lower prices.

His remarks followed those of Lakshmi Mittal, chairman and chief executive of ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steelmaker. “I have never experienced a downturn of this scale in my career,†Mr Mittal said, adding that while there were recovery signs in Brazil, China and the United States, there was little sign of them in Europe. He said that while overcapacity would continue this year, he believed that a gradual recovery would take shape in 2010.

When you are dealing with a banana republic that's fiddling the figures one of the better measures of output is to measure energy use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6565082.ece

When you are dealing with a banana republic that's fiddling the figures one of the better measures of output is to measure energy use.

What do you want to hand on to your kids?

A bunch of BS numbers and rotting BMW's or a planet that may continue to sustain human life?

This economic model dependent on 'growth', growth meaning the ever increasing rate of consumption was clearly a nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This economic model dependent on 'growth', growth meaning the ever increasing rate of consumption was clearly a nonsense.

They appear to fail to grasp the economy needs to breathe continual expansion is impossible.

I think you've missed a bit it's based on consuming and binning perpetually. Clearly insane.

Consuming and recycling maybe more sustainable but I suspect even this will cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
They appear to fail to grasp the economy needs to breathe continual expansion is impossible.

I think you've missed a bit it's based on consuming and binning perpetually. Clearly insane.

Consuming and recycling maybe more sustainable but I suspect even this will cause problems.

Yes, there is only so much that is recovered in terms of some resources. In terms of hydrocarbons energy, nothing is recovered. Its a one time-consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this considered "bad news" ? Surely we want energy consumption to fall in the long run. The fact that lower energy use is seen in terms of economic weakness just highlights the conflict between a sustainable future and the desire for profit and growth. It just confirms we will run about rampantly consuming resources until we run out, then we'll all have a big fight over whats left, and then die or starve.

I watched that "Crude Brittania" docu about the North sea oil, all very interesting (at least to me, I knew nothing). The one line that staggered me was the narrator when he was trying to express the gargantuan size of the Forties field, saying that it was such an enormous amount of energy it would supply all of Britain's energy needs for a whole five years. What? FIVE years? What then? What about the rest of eternity?

Blessed with such an amazing resource, our approach has of course been to rampantly consume it as fast as we possible can, shagging, multiplying, and consuming ever more wildly while there was more than enough to go around. Thats it. Thats about all we're capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad to see the number of you who watch a shitty VI video and think you know everything about the economy and how the world works.

Firstly, our economies don’t depend on “perpetual growthâ€. Firstly you need to define what you mean by “growthâ€. If the service sector doubles the economy would grow some 70% but we would not be using more of “mother earths†resources.

Now, considering that you mean we need to continue to consume more and more and more resources and that is impossible. Firstly it is not impossible because we don’t destroy resources; we just convert it from one form to another. For example a car uses iron ore but once it is used it is recycled by man or it is dumped in landfill were nature recycles it so man can use it many years later.

1: our societies and economies do NOT depend on “perpetual growthâ€

2: we do not destroy resources and have an infinite resource pool so that isn’t a problem.

3: stop being so thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
It is sad to see the number of you who watch a shitty VI video and think you know everything about the economy and how the world works.

Firstly, our economies don’t depend on “perpetual growthâ€. Firstly you need to define what you mean by “growthâ€. If the service sector doubles the economy would grow some 70% but we would not be using more of “mother earths†resources.

Now, considering that you mean we need to continue to consume more and more and more resources and that is impossible. Firstly it is not impossible because we don’t destroy resources; we just convert it from one form to another. For example a car uses iron ore but once it is used it is recycled by man or it is dumped in landfill were nature recycles it so man can use it many years later.

1: our societies and economies do NOT depend on “perpetual growthâ€

2: we do not destroy resources and have an infinite resource pool so that isn’t a problem.

3: stop being so thick.

Bo!!ox!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this considered "bad news" ? Surely we want energy consumption to fall in the long run. The fact that lower energy use is seen in terms of economic weakness just highlights the conflict between a sustainable future and the desire for profit and growth. It just confirms we will run about rampantly consuming resources until we run out, then we'll all have a big fight over whats left, and then die or starve.

I watched that "Crude Brittania" docu about the North sea oil, all very interesting (at least to me, I knew nothing). The one line that staggered me was the narrator when he was trying to express the gargantuan size of the Forties field, saying that it was such an enormous amount of energy it would supply all of Britain's energy needs for a whole five years. What? FIVE years? What then? What about the rest of eternity?

Blessed with such an amazing resource, our approach has of course been to rampantly consume it as fast as we possible can, shagging, multiplying, and consuming ever more wildly while there was more than enough to go around. Thats it. Thats about all we're capable of.

Can you name me 5 resources which are finite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bo!!ox!

Fine but back up your thoughts.

Can you name me 5 resources we are likely to run out of within the say…. Next 100 years?

While you’re at it, please logically explain why we need “continual growth†or the world explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
Fine but back up your thoughts.

Can you name me 5 resources we are likely to run out of within the say…. Next 100 years?

While you’re at it, please logically explain why we need “continual growth†or the world explodes.

Next 100 years now is it?

Water - resulting in serious conflict

Oil - easily recoverable stuff

Likely uranium if loads of nuke stations are built

Productive agricultural land - soil erosion, mono-cropping etc

Forests

Their perpetual growth model just failed. Look around at what is happening. Why do they continually concentrate on the 'consumer' when it comes to economic growth.

What will these service industries service?

The point about conversion of energy and matter is that industry converts it from high quality energy and matter to low quality energy and matter, dispersed into air, land and water . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Next 100 years now is it?

Water - resulting in serious conflict

Oil - easily recoverable stuff

Likely uranium if loads of nuke stations are built

Productive agricultural land - soil erosion, mono-cropping etc

Forests

Their perpetual growth model just failed. Look around at what is happening. Why do they continually concentrate on the 'consumer' when it comes to economic growth.

What will these service industries service?

The point about conversion of energy and matter is that industry converts it from high quality energy and matter to low quality energy and matter, dispersed into air, land and water . . .

how will we run out of water? we don’t destroy it, we just move it about. so you are wrong there

oil is not a resource in itself, what do we use oil for mostly?? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike two

uranium: yes it is limited although stocks are quite large. so you are talking many many hundreds of years. the total uranium stock though is much greater and your talking many thousands of years. but again you fail because uranium itself isn’t really a resource. what do we use it mostly for? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike 3 and your out

shame you didnt think this though isnt it??

productive agricultural land:

yes land is limited but we are not close to using it all currently. we then have methods of growing food Hydroponically

in closed buildings like the Japanese are currently doing. strike 4

forests?? do you mean wood? we can grow the stuff

you failed, i knew you would, but since I am a kind generous sort of person you can try again

what resources do we have that are finite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
how will we run out of water? we don’t destroy it, we just move it about. so you are wrong there

oil is not a resource in itself, what do we use oil for mostly?? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike two

uranium: yes it is limited although stocks are quite large. so you are talking many many hundreds of years. the total uranium stock though is much greater and your talking many thousands of years. but again you fail because uranium itself isn’t really a resource. what do we use it mostly for? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike 3 and your out

shame you didnt think this though isnt it??

productive agricultural land:

yes land is limited but we are not close to using it all currently. we then have methods of growing food Hydroponically

in closed buildings like the Japanese are currently doing. strike 4

forests?? do you mean wood? we can grow the stuff

you failed, i knew you would, but since I am a kind generous sort of person you can try again

what resources do we have that are finite?

No offence, but I've work to do.

You win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their perpetual growth model just failed. Look around at what is happening. Why do they continually concentrate on the 'consumer' when it comes to economic growth.

What will these service industries service?

In your mind we will all need more and more TVs, more and more cars, more and more shoes.

In reality we in the west are close to saturation of “goodsâ€. We will not need much more than we have. It is the reason out economies are now some 70% services and it will continue to grow. Economic growth will be via services because we will not need nor want more “stuffâ€.

But again you poorly assume that there is a limit to the amount of stuff we can make. There is no real limit because nearly all things on earth are limitless and we don’t “consume†most of them just transfer it from one place to another and one form to another.

The point about conversion of energy and matter is that industry converts it from high quality energy and matter to low quality energy and matter, dispersed into air, land and water . . .

Wrong again, in most cases we take low “quality†resources and turn them into high quality resources. The steel industry is a good example; we take crap iron ore dispersed around the world and make concentrated slab steel, which is then used for other things. Slab steel is a lot higher quality VS iron ore deep underground.

The only place we do what you said is in burning fossil fuels but they are an interim gap. We have infinite power from the sun we could and will utilise.

Shame on you for falling to VI "green" propaganda.

Take a look at the link in my sig, which one are you in that video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this considered "bad news" ? Surely we want energy consumption to fall in the long run. The fact that lower energy use is seen in terms of economic weakness just highlights the conflict between a sustainable future and the desire for profit and growth. It just confirms we will run about rampantly consuming resources until we run out, then we'll all have a big fight over whats left, and then die or starve.

I watched that "Crude Brittania" docu about the North sea oil, all very interesting (at least to me, I knew nothing). The one line that staggered me was the narrator when he was trying to express the gargantuan size of the Forties field, saying that it was such an enormous amount of energy it would supply all of Britain's energy needs for a whole five years. What? FIVE years? What then? What about the rest of eternity?

Blessed with such an amazing resource, our approach has of course been to rampantly consume it as fast as we possible can, shagging, multiplying, and consuming ever more wildly while there was more than enough to go around. Thats it. Thats about all we're capable of.

UK would be decreasing in population if it wasn't for immigrants

also read up on immigrants level of children vs uk born level of babies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that the environmental movement starters and supporters were and still are anti business and anti capitalism.

In their old skin people saw them for the fools they were so they came back as "green" people with the same aim but armed with propaganda.

The baby pandas will die and our children will have gills if we dont cripple all business and return to communism.

Reminds me of organised religion.

Edited by cells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
:lol:

cells,

I think this whole subject is critical to how the future develops. I'd love to do a real in depth project on it but I don't have time right now (currently in the design and permitting phase of a recycling centre and a big regen job in Europe).

Grabbing a few links and posting them on a house price website does not do it justice.

Perhaps in a few months I'll be freed up a bit and we could both work on it.

It would be good.

I do agree recycling is the way to go. It takes 5% of the amount of energy to make new steel from old over ores. But is this really happening? Will it happen?

PM me if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how will we run out of water? we don’t destroy it, we just move it about. so you are wrong there

oil is not a resource in itself, what do we use oil for mostly?? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike two

uranium: yes it is limited although stocks are quite large. so you are talking many many hundreds of years. the total uranium stock though is much greater and your talking many thousands of years. but again you fail because uranium itself isn’t really a resource. what do we use it mostly for? energy right? well we already have an infinite source of energy which is the sun. strike 3 and your out

shame you didnt think this though isnt it??

productive agricultural land:

yes land is limited but we are not close to using it all currently. we then have methods of growing food Hydroponically

in closed buildings like the Japanese are currently doing. strike 4

forests?? do you mean wood? we can grow the stuff

you failed, i knew you would, but since I am a kind generous sort of person you can try again

what resources do we have that are finite?

don't want to spoil this thread by interjecting any facts but I used to think the same about water (by the way agree with lots of the other points)

Water is different though - the world population is increasing and what are we made up of? 60-65% water so the more of us there is the less water and thats without drinking and sanitation needs. So in reality it is a finite resource, hard to drink your neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't want to spoil this thread by interjecting any facts but I used to think the same about water (by the way agree with lots of the other points)

Water is different though - the world population is increasing and what are we made up of? 60-65% water so the more of us there is the less water and thats without drinking and sanitation needs. So in reality it is a finite resource, hard to drink your neighbour.

There is of course no global shortage of water. It's just a purification and distribution problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
There is of course no global shortage of water. It's just a purification and distribution problem.

It's still a problem. Yet we through money at banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cells,

I think this whole subject is critical to how the future develops. I'd love to do a real in depth project on it but I don't have time right now (currently in the design and permitting phase of a recycling centre and a big regen job in Europe).

Grabbing a few links and posting them on a house price website does not do it justice.

Perhaps in a few months I'll be freed up a bit and we could both work on it.

It would be good.

I do agree recycling is the way to go. It takes 5% of the amount of energy to make new steel from old over ores. But is this really happening? Will it happen?

PM me if you're interested.

sure, do a hpc thread so we can all share

i would however highlight that almost everything boils down to energy, if we have infinite (or near infinite) energy then we have near infinite other resources. I think you would agree with that.

So the challenge to you would be to prove that we do not have infinite energy.

My argument is that we do have near infinite energy in the form of the sun.

We can capture it in many ways but solar panels will probably win the race

Over the last 20 odd years the price has gone down considerably from about $6 a watt to 90 cents a watt. If the same happens again over the next 20 years we would have near infinite and very cheap electricity from solar panels.

We already have infinite expensive energy from solar panels and other sources, but soon it may well become very cheap too.

Prove that wrong if you can, I would be very interested if you could but I highly doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine but back up your thoughts.

Can you name me 5 resources we are likely to run out of within the say…. Next 100 years?

While you’re at it, please logically explain why we need “continual growth†or the world explodes.

Patience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't want to spoil this thread by interjecting any facts but I used to think the same about water (by the way agree with lots of the other points)

Water is different though - the world population is increasing and what are we made up of? 60-65% water so the more of us there is the less water and thats without drinking and sanitation needs. So in reality it is a finite resource, hard to drink your neighbour.

You’re having a laugh right?

Your argument is that an increasing human population holds water in their bodies, which is not recycled like normal water?

What % of the world’s water do you think is held in human bodies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
sure, do a hpc thread so we can all share

i would however highlight that almost everything boils down to energy, if we have infinite (or near infinite) energy then we have near infinite other resources. I think you would agree with that.

So the challenge to you would be to prove that we do not have infinite energy.

My argument is that we do have near infinite energy in the form of the sun.

We can capture it in many ways but solar panels will probably win the race

Over the last 20 odd years the price has gone down considerably from about $6 a watt to 90 cents a watt. If the same happens again over the next 20 years we would have near infinite and very cheap electricity from solar panels.

We already have infinite expensive energy from solar panels and other sources, but soon it may well become very cheap too.

Prove that wrong if you can, I would be very interested if you could but I highly doubt it.

Yep, I'd tend to agree, although need to do more research.

Trouble is, it's just not happening.

I had this argument with my Uncle who assures me PV Solar is pure BS when it comes to mass production of energy. I'll ask him to run the numbers. Still trying to get hold of him at the moment, but since he retired he's given up email.

The point is, we, as a society are not moving in this direction. Money (which determines where human effort, the application of ingenuity and how resources are used) is not ploughed into real human development. It goes on inflating house prices instead, useless widgets, etc.

Sure, we have infinite energy, if we live within it's means. If the population is within the carrying capacity of the suns energy, which if I remember rightly is around 1400 W/sq.m at the equator, multiply by the co-sign of the latitude to adjust for deflection or something like that. Kurt's the real guy on this one.

I've done a couple of threads here about how to get out of this economic mess by re-engineering the way we live. Basic stuff, but as you know I'm not the sharpest tool in the HPC box.

Not social engineering, just engineering. Not political, simply technical . . . is the general gist of the thing.

But the fact remains, all this is impossible if we don't first make it possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.